On 14 September 1981 the Military Public Prosecutor
filed an indictment with the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court charging
the applicant under articles 125 and 168 of the Criminal Code with membership
of the PKK and undertaking actions aimed at separating a portion of
the territories under the sovereignty of the State from the administration
of the State.

On an unspecified date the applicant appointed
a lawyer of his own choice to represent him throughout the domestic
criminal proceedings.

On 19 February 1985 the Martial Law Court found
the applicant guilty of offences under Articles 125 and 168 and sentenced
him to 24 years' imprisonment. The applicant appealed.

On 10 April 1990 the Military Court of Cassation
(askeri
yargıtay) quashed the judgment of 19 February 1985 holding that
there was insufficient evidence for the applicant's conviction.

On 18 June 1990 the applicant was released pending
trial.

Following promulgation of the Law of 26 December
1994, which abolished the jurisdiction of the martial law courts, the
Diyarbakır Assize Court acquired jurisdiction over the case and the
case-file was sent to it.

On 13 July 1998 the Diyarbakır Assize Court
acquitted the applicant of the charges.

On 5 August 1998 the judgment of the Diyarbakır
Assize Court was served on the applicant's representative.

On 10 September 1998 the judgment acquitting
the applicant became final as neither the applicant nor the public prosecutor
had appealed against it before the statutory time-limit.

On 4 February 1999 the applicant appointed a
new lawyer, who is his representative in the proceedings before the
Court.

On 19 March 1999 the now final judgment was served
on the applicant's new lawyer upon his request.

On 30 April 1999 the applicant filed a claim
with the Konya Assize Court under Law no. 466 requesting compensation
for his unjustified detention on remand.

On 3 November 2000 the Konya Assize Court awarded
compensation to the applicant.

On 14 June 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld
the judgment of the first-instance court.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1
of the Convention that the criminal proceedings brought against him
were not concluded within a reasonable time.

THE LAW

The applicant submitted that the length of the
criminal proceedings against him had failed to satisfy the “reasonable
time” requirement under Article 6 § 1. The relevant parts of Article
6 § 1 provide as follows:

“In the determination of ... any criminal charge
against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable
time by [a] ... tribunal...”

The Government submitted that the application
had not been introduced within the time allowed by Article 35 § 1 of
the Convention. They maintained that the judgment of the Diyarbakır
Assize Court had been served on the applicant's representative on 5
August 1998 and that this judgment had become final on 10 September
1998 as the applicant had not lodged an appeal. They submitted therefore
that the six months had begun to run on 10 September 1998.

The applicant contested the Government's submissions.
He contended that he had learned about the judgment of the Diyarbakır
Assize Court on 19 March 1999 as he had not had any contact with his previous
lawyer since 1985. He submitted that the six months should have started
to run from 19 March 1999. In that connection, he asserted that he had
applied to the domestic courts for compensation for his unjust detention
under Law no. 466 and that the domestic courts had taken 19 March 1999
as the date on which the statutory time-limit began to run. He submitted
to the Court decisions of the Court of Cassation concerning the statutory
time-limit in the proceedings under Law no. 466 in support of his allegations.

The Court reiterates at the outset that, according
to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it may only deal with an individual
application lodged with it after all domestic remedies have been exhausted,
according to generally recognised rules of international law, and within
a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was
taken.

The Court further reiterates that the six-month
period runs from the date on which the applicant's lawyer became aware
of the decision completing the exhaustion of the domestic remedies,
notwithstanding the fact that the applicant only became aware of the
decision later (see Martinus Godefridus Aarts v. the Netherlands, no. 14056/88, Commission decision
of 28 May 1991, Decisions and Reports (DR) 70, p. 208, at pp. 212 and 213,
and the following decisions of the Court: Keskin and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36091/97, 7 September 1999; Bölükbaş and Others v.Turkey
(dec.), no. 37793/97, 12 October 1999, and Pejic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 66894/01, 19 December 2002).

In the instant case, the Court observes that
the judgment of the Diyarbakır Assize Court became final on 10 September
1998. Even assuming that the applicant became aware of the above-mentioned
judgment on 19 March 1999 as he alleged, this date cannot be taken as
the starting-date for the running of the six-month time-limit. The Court
considers that if the applicant was not in contact with his former lawyer,
this was due to his own negligence.

As regards the applicant's allegation that his
case concerning the compensation claim filed under Law no. 466 was admitted
by the domestic courts, the Court notes that the procedure laid down
in Law no. 466 is not connected to the ordinary criminal procedure. The
Court of Cassation's decisions concerning the starting-date of the statutory
time-limits pertain solely to the aforementioned procedure. Moreover,
the Court considers that it canot be bound by the time-limits in domestic
law as regards calculation of the six-months period.

The Court concludes therefore that the final
decision in the present case became final on 10 September 1998, whereas
the applicant lodged his application with the Court on 27 July 1999.

It follows that the application was introduced
out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1
and 4 of the Convention.